My point stands- he is getting his H_C rights. Didn't you claim he wasn't? Forgive me if I misunderstood- that certainly seemed to be your point.
If we are finished with that, as a JAG vet, you could tell every one here what Constitutional rights an unlawful combatant has.
That's going to be a matter of interest very soon.
My point stands- he is getting his H_C rights. Didn't you claim he wasn't? Forgive me if I misunderstood- that certainly seemed to be your point.
If we are finished with that, as a JAG vet, you could tell every one here what Constitutional rights an unlawful combatant has."
First, if you are saying that by petitioning the courts on a writ of habeas corpus Padilla is getting his Constitutional Rights that is a stretch. . The Executive Branch is operating under what Legal Authority? Also please tell me what Congressional Authority in this case you are speaking of? If you are speaking of Congress's joint resolution authorizing the use of force counts as a declaration of war that is very much a huge and open question.
The terms Unlawful and Lawful Combatants in the case of AQ and Taliban detainees is a very complex issue. Even under JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) and EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). It’s a very complex issue especially when it comes to Taliban Detainees. AQ seem to fit the classification of Unlawful Combatants. As far as rights?
Start Reading…….
Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949